Born to Lie

Lana Del Rey, born under the sign of Gemini, is symbolically represented by two people-- in this case, maybe more. (Hell, it's appropriate to wonder about who's really singing here. "Lana Del Rey" isn't even her real name).

There are a few different people present on this album. They all have a common undercurrent, a thread, but the sense of fragmentation persists, making it hard to listen to any one song all the way through-- they all seem about a minute too long, with one possible exception.

So what's the roll call? Well, most of the personae on "Ready to Die" have a distinctly 1960's feel-- the early part of the decade. Del Rey's image on the cover is a major hint in this direction-- she's telling us that this is from when dissipated (key word #1) girls would lounge on hardwood floors, smoking cigarettes, and wish they were starring in black-and-white French films. The proto-Tumblr generation, maybe-- a kind of hollowness that seeks for romanticism, and if it can't find it, settles for the romanticizing of hollowness itself. (It's too spoiled to be true weltschmerz, though. It hasn't even found its way out of the suburbs yet).

So with that in mind, watch in wonder as Del Rey tours through all the components of this particular slice of Americana, but never gets them to cohere. This (for me, at least), is where the interest and the aggravation of the album are located. This is a collection of phrases, not poems. Del Rey has got a talent for finding the little hints and pieces of the gestalt, but can't quite put it all together into one big, satisfying package.

I mean, for the most part, we've seen these pieces before. The biblical, doomstruck lust of "Blue Jeans" has been P. J. Harvey's stomping ground for years. The drunk-on-wine, lounging-at-the-poolside languor. Her slightly exaggerated, California-girl sighs and enunciations (which clash oddly with her British pronunciation of "vitamin" on "Radio"). The corny chirpings that make you wonder if Debbie Reynolds might not have had a granddaughter we didn't know about. Little stylistic choices, most of which seem to get picked up and dropped at random.

The result is a kind of maddening collage of all the girls who would namedrop Nabokov for one reason or another (her not mentioning "Lolita" at some point or points in this album is almost inconceivable, and sure enough, "Off to the Races" has her murmuring "light of my life, fire of my loins"), mixed with a healthy dollop of Nancy Sinatra, with some bemusingly anachronistic dancefloor-DJ touches. Imagine Charlotte Gainsbourg produced by Timbaland. (There's even a spoken-French interlude on "Carmen").

I had mentioned earlier that there's one place where this particular construction comes together and holds. Of course I'm talking about "Video Games", where Del Rey's affected, distant delivery suddenly finds itself a tune and texture good enough to make it transcend itself. The essential fakeness of Del Rey's whole attitude works in this song, as we're invited to picture a girl making maudlin, sweeping love-declarations to herself while her boyfriend, incurable romantic that he is, drinks beer and plays video games. She's off in the corner, congratulating herself on her affair for the ages-- "this is my idea of fun, playing video games", she says, fooling no one-- while he is completely unaware of his emotional makeover at her hands. On the rest of the songs, the guy is a figment of Del Rey's melodramatic imagination-- he's a bad boy, a rebel, a dangerously sexy pegged-jeans-and-Lucky-Strike character-- in other words, he doesn't exist. On "Video Games", he's a real person, probably not too interesting, drives a car, plays pool and darts, someone who is filtered by the singer's imagination, not created by it. The difference is conspicuous.

Maybe that's the key to the puzzle of how to make a basically fake attitude convince us of its sincerity. Del Rey is at her least convincing when she's selling it straight, acting as if these hot times and forbidden schoolgirl stirrings were the whole truth of the matter. What's far more interesting (at least to me) is when we get clues that the singer is making the whole thing up, that these are the songs born of a girl with a rather humdrum life, that have been draped in lipstick and romanticism just to make the occurrences more interesting and livable. I can't believe that Del Rey's character stayed at the Chateau Marmont in the 60's, but I can believe that she wishes she had.

So if I were to offer advice to Ms. Del Rey I would say: don't try to trick us-- make us complicit in your escapism! We're all willing to join you in the Los Angeles of your imagination. Just keep an eye on the dreary realities that you're singing to get away from-- it will make the reverie all the more appealing.

Emotion ---> Cogitation

The most sophisticated systems of analysis are those that are not hard-edged, but are biological or "soft" in their application, fluid to such a degree that the postulates and underlying assumptions of said algorithms change instantly in response to that data which is input. Associated with the human phenomena of perception and intuition, this would give rise (presumably) in a sophisticated person to the idea that their fundamental operating procedures would change quickly and smoothly in response to external stimuli, even that which is unfamiliar or unexpected. A shorthand way of depicting this is to say that you would change based on what you were observing, or rather that what you were observing would change you. This comes tantalizingly close to some of the conclusions drawn of late by quantum physics, in particular the idea that by observing some solid-state phenomenon, the observation itself has the property of altering the outcome or the very reality of that which is being observed. To return again to the idea of human intuition (something so subtle yet widely disseminated throughout the whole of the human species as to be poorly understood), this rapid restructuring of one's self-concept or modes of behavior would happen so smoothly and completely that for all intents and purposes it could border on precognition. Nevertheless it must be said that this is probably a characteristic of the fluid or "water" type of personality, often described as one of the four cardinal personality categories. There is another mode of behavior which is to assert oneself as basically inalterable, to such a degree that the external reality is obliged to reshape itself in order to mold around this incontrovertible expression of will. This is another neat duality (to go on the almost infinite pile thereof)-- whether to change, or allow oneself to be change. The aforementioned intuitive capacities could be reasonably expected, if we can apply this kind of second-order thought-- to provide us information on when to resort to either of these two modes of behavior. To put it another way, we can intuitively know when it is time to be intuitive, and when it is not. This type of abstract thinking would seem to preclude those who are not in touch with their own inner landscapes, as this paradoxical and occasionally contradictory thinking and byzantine operating instructions can easily give rise to brooding, labyrinthine analysis and re-analysis, trapping the intellectual aspirant in unproductive loops of thinking.

(There may be some physiological benefit to these thought-loops. In much the same way that a treadmill may be used to burn off calories and nervous energy, the glucose-consuming hamster-wheel of the mind may be used to reduce the cogitator to such a degree of exhaustion that acceptance and enlightenment are more easily reached).

The primarily intellectual or "air" person, I suppose, would develop their schema and hermeneutic pathways to such an elegant, complex degree that all unknown information would find itself quickly and neatly sorted into its appropriate box. The obvious drawback to such a method is that it finds itself quite useful when dealing with logical phenomena, but flounders when confronted with a non-sequitur or paradox. In such cases the cogitator must rely on auxiliary modes of self-guidance, and if such modes have not been adequately developed during the upbringing or formative years then the data will be rudely shoved into known equations whether or not it fits, leading to shrill or hostile or unreasonable behavior.

About a Girl/Woman/Lady/Child

In you represents-- perhaps not perfection, because who of us is perfect?-- but then again, "perfection" seems to me to be the word. Let me explain: not perfection as the unobtainable goal, but as the culmination. Perfection as the only logical outcome of a series of steps. Perfection as the only reasonable fulfillment of all criteria.

Prismatic is another word. To meet a person of such richness, multiple facets, and depth. Like the description of an expensive coffee or wine.

It's a good feeling, being in San Francisco and around you. The sensation of abundance is particularly present, such that any expression of personality or persona arise naturally, not affectedly. That which you see has no choice but to appear. Rather like a fountain pouring its streams onto the sick, withered seeds of my heart. Etc.

Liberalisitarianism

I do not identify as a Libertarian, although I am a big fan of personal freedoms. How do I reconcile these two positions?

I think Libertarian thought is essentially a snotty teenage attitude, written in political ink. They don't like the idea of anyone telling them what to do, for any reason. They think that every country should mind its own business. It's as big a power vacuum as Anarchy, although I've heard Penn Jillette claim that the two are not synonymous.

My political leanings remain Liberal. I don't believe that it is impossible for a government to provide services and regulations, while at the same time being fairly educated and enlightened as to the realities of human life. And what do I mean by that? Oh, things like the idea that marriage is a social institution first and foremost, and it is up to one's chosen clergy to sanctify it, if that's where your pleasure lies, and is not the prerogative of the State. Or that most human beings will respond well to concerns of safety and well-being, rather than paranoia and oppressive attitudes.

The Libertarian viewpoint is basically the Wild West, so far as I can tell. And we've already done that (I know that, because we've done everything). I suppose I recognize them as ideological brothers and sisters because both our positions are based on "liberty", literally and linguistically.

But consider the following. People like to band together, do they not? Whether for protection, efficiency, or the simple pleasure of doing so. I maintain that some of these groups will, without designated auspices, harm others for one reason or another. It's the responsibility of the lots of little people on the bottom to make sure we have a pledged group to the little people. Or to put it another way, government's first obligation is to the people. Any governmental system that says otherwise is bizarre at best, nefarious at worst. On the other hand, a corporation's first interest is that corporation itself. To hell with the people, unless they're shareholders!

And there is nothing inherently strange or wrong about this. We can acknowledge that certain groups and ideologies are in it to make money, first and foremost. That's fine. It's a large world and there is certainly a place for such groups. But where we fall flat is where we start bullshitting ourselves that these entities, without any kind of regulation, will automatically serve the best interests of the people. I just can't see this leap of logic.

To take a more specific example, I happen to like having the FDA around. I like the idea that food manufacturers are legally required to post accurate information about their product along with said product. Do I think that these food manufacturers, if they had the chance, would cut corners, add potentially harmful ingredients to their foods, and so on, assuming such practices increased their profit margins? Absolutely, unequivocally, without a doubt I do. And I hold no malice towards them for it! That's just what they do.

So let us, for our part, invest our political power in groups whose raison d'etre is keeping an eye on these other groups.

And to reiterate my point, I do not give up hope of the idea of a fairly enlightened series of regulations when it comes to this type of thing. Is this going to happen in America? Not any time soon, Jack. The system is firmly entrenched, and it's going to take something like spiritual dynamite to get any kind of change happening. But I happen to like the Scandinavian ethos. They seem, to use the word, "civilized". I suppose that I myself believe in civilization. We can be gentlemen and -women, can we not? Not in any kind of antiquated, stuffy sense. But let us assume their sense of gentility, honesty, plainspokenness, and so on. (We can do without all the class-based colonization in places like the Congo, that goes without saying).

Because what we have now is a lot of stuffy, blue-nosed, schoolmarmish nightmares. We strive to be without moral blemish while perpetrating the worst of horrors. Can we admit to a few vices, if that will help us face up to infinitely more dangerous habits? I hope so.

Diagnosis

Life is a long, irritating, painful slog. The only things that seem to make it worthwhile are virtually impossible to obtain or achieve. Under these circumstances, I cannot condemn anyone for taking their own life; indeed, there are times when I think of suicide as one of the only really rational actions of which a human being is capable.

Well, all right, let's talk about the Democratic party, although I'm out of my depth here (and probably have been from the beginning).

I'd say their biggest problem right now-- and I mean "problem" in the sense that they relate to the rational, normal American like you and me, and not in the sense of Democratic strategy-- is that they are not the GOP. To cut right to the chase, there is a huge game of Good Cop/Bad Cop that is being foisted on the American public right now. (God, I feel like I'm laboring the obvious, but oh well).

As soon as official party policy becomes, "At least we're not that OTHER GUY!" you've begun to introduce a kind of slow rot into the idea of electability. This is what seems to have torpedoed the Democratic aspirations in '04 against Bush. The best Kerry could ever muster was, "Well, I'm not Bush, you can say that for sure!" And that's pretty weak tea, cold oatmeal. It's death, from a philosophical standpoint. Even factoring in the roiling tides of anti-Bush sentiment, it just wasn't enough.

And that seems to have been a crucial point in Democratic ideology. "We're not those guys!" Which is great, because on the one hand, no, we don't exactly want a bunch of eye-rolling loonies. But of course that's a colossal dupe. There is no choice. Do you want a punch in the eye or a kick in the balls? You're plenty bad enough, even if you aren't those guys. You're just a little sneakier about it.

Do you want something that explicitly terrifies you, or only implicitly? I wrote a little anecdote which is the best I can put it:

The impatient businessman says to his client, "Don't forget to take a pen on your way out." His client looks at the empty mug on his desk and says, "But you're out of pens." The businessman replies, "Fine, then take two and let's not have any fuss about it."

party conversation topic

As I was explaining last night to a fellow who turned out to be from Scotland, Texas is in the rather unusual position of having to defend a rational policy.

And what I mean by that: Texas, by virtue of its geographic character, shares a pretty enormous border with Mexico, meaning that in spite of all the abstract thinking and (let's be honest) stupid rhetoric that gets tossed around on this issue-- they actually and truly have to deal with being a border state. As a result, even though they are firmly in The South, solidly conservative, GOP, home of George W. Bush and so on, someone like Rick Perry has had to stand up and say to other GOP candidates things along the lines of, "Well, we'd all love to build a fence to keep out 'illegals', but you know that's not really feasible or desirable..." while the other candidates then get to jump on him for being soft on illegal immigration.

You can probably see the rich irony of the situation. Texas politicians get flak from their own party for dealing with reality, no matter how much they might wish it were otherwise, if only because official party policy is at such odds with reality. And this puts them in the blackly humorous position of having to defend a rational, reasonable, forward-thinking set of policies because such rationality is held in such low regard by others in their party.

This, to me, is modern political theater at its most absolutely hilarious. I mean, for pure black comedy you just can't beat it. It makes Pagliacci look absolutely amateur.

I think in certain ways this makes Rick Perry the inescapable end-product of our modern political system, or at least one wing of it (the Democratic side of the aisle has a much more subtle terror going for them, but I won't go into that now). Where he is not absolutely and monstrously wrong, he is absolutely and monstrously right, and there is no way either of these positions can do him any good. (There's also the chance that he really is a braindead buffoon. But I don't think it's lack of intelligence, per se, that makes him the figure that he is). He is right for all the wrong reasons, and he's wrong for all the right reasons. And you can't ask for a more fascinating politician than that.

As a matter of fact, what's been his most effective strategy so far, as a politician? Not showing up! He didn't show up for debates when it came to the governorship of Texas, and that suited him perfectly. That strategy was a resounding success. And now that he's become a national joke, what is he talking about doing? Not showing up! Yes! The problem is that he has actually been going to the GOP debates, and opening his mouth, and just generally spewing forth the type of incoherent word-salad that has him plummeting in the polls like a swan with an arrow through its heart. His tactic is to be absent. His positions are that which remain once all other positions have been taken by other, irritatingly present candidates. Rick Perry is What's Left. And that is fucking brilliant.

Now, this may have suited him for the governorship, but I don't think it'll be enough to win him the GOP nomination. For one thing, Mitt Romney just keeps showing up and not being demonstrably insane, which you can tell is pissing off the Washington insiders no end. They're desperate to go with any-fucking-body else, but it's just not happening. For another thing, Perry has already burst his own balloon by doing the opposite of what he does best. He's already shown up (and it's been a disaster). If he had been the perfect, abstract candidate... and aren't those polls hilarious, the ones that show Obama losing to generic, anonymous "Republican candidate", but him thumping soundly any actual person with a name and an agenda?-- he might've stood a chance. But no, he's become distinct now, and what he is is distinctly... strange. Not electable, anyway. Oh well. Poor Richard.